[MD Optofonik]

I've read a few more articles on the subject and I'm beginning to wonder if there is really is any reason to have both a CCD based and CMOS based DSLR; or if there ever was.

[lmd91343]

The Pentax DSLR CCD used prices are so low now, why consider selling it for only a few dollars? The only cost is the shelf space.

I've never seen the difference.

[Adam]

I've read a few more articles on the subject and I'm beginning to wonder if there is really is any reason to have both a CCD based and CMOS based DSLR; or if there ever was.

The CCD bodies are starting to show their age. Might not get much use once you've picked up one of the newer cameras

[Jonathan Mac]

I haven't used my K200D since I bought my K3, but I haven't sold it either. I really should, but it's fitted with a no-longer-available Katzeye screen, so perhaps worth more than the average "old" DSLR.

I can't say I notice the difference in IQ either, except for the increased dynamic range of the K3.

[Digitalis]

The Last time I used my K10D I got this:


Pentax K10D - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG @ 210mm - f/4 ISO 100 1/180th Wireless AF540FGZ with 1/4 HONL CTO gel

This subject really lent itself to the rich colour reproduction of a CCD, I doubt the K5IIs ( which I now own) would have made much improvement to this image.The K10D has truly superb image quality at ISO100.

[ismaelg]

My K100DS is still in regular use as my product studio camera in a controlled light box. It is still good enough for magazine prints, catalogs etc. The small files are easier and faster to process. But it rarely leaves the (house) studio.
This is a sample: Customized Hot Wheels.


My main body is a K5II. K20 as backup and KX as low light backup.

Thanks,

[patrick9]

I have tweeked the Cmos in my K-30 to closely resemble the colors I get from my ccd in my DL and D70. That said I still prefer the ccd over the cmos , but not as much since the tweeking. For me it is the same difference I saw in film Kodak and fuji .Both good but Kodak a bit warmer / richer. Both have their place in my family.

[sholtzma]

One claim that used to be made in favor of CCDs was that they don't heat up as fast and so are more reliable (for heat-produced noise) than CMOS for, say, astrophotography. Don't know if that is still true, given the improvements in sensor technology over the years. Anyone know?

[6BQ5]

Rather than selling the body, consider passing it on to a young family member who may show an interest in digital photography. Even if the interest lasts a short time the experience may leave an indelible positive mark on their lives.

[realitarian]

One claim that used to be made in favor of CCDs was that they don't heat up as fast and so are more reliable (for heat-produced noise) than CMOS for, say, astrophotography. Don't know if that is still true, given the improvements in sensor technology over the years. Anyone know?

The cameras they sell on any astronomy vendor sites are all CCDs, so you are probably correct.

[UncleVanya]

One claim that used to be made in favor of CCDs was that they don't heat up as fast and so are more reliable (for heat-produced noise) than CMOS for, say, astrophotography. Don't know if that is still true, given the improvements in sensor technology over the years. Anyone know?

A quick google search leads to contradictory results. Some say the cmos heat less quickly, some say the CCDs produce more waste heat. I'm frankly lost as to what is right.

[DeadJohn]

One claim that used to be made in favor of CCDs was that they don't heat up as fast and so are more reliable (for heat-produced noise) than CMOS for, say, astrophotography. Don't know if that is still true, given the improvements in sensor technology over the years. Anyone know?

A modern CCD has some strengths compared to an equally modern CMOS sensor. Pentax' modern CMOS sensors blow away any Pentax CCD, though, because the CCD models are ancient (given all the recent advances in sensor technology).

[realitarian]

A quick google search leads to contradictory results. Some say the cmos heat less quickly, some say the CCDs produce more waste heat. I'm frankly lost as to what is right.

Some more google searches:

Battle of the Imagers - CCD vs CMOS
The only major drawback to CMOS imagers are the fact they conduct heat rather well at higher ISO speeds and at longer time exposures. The other problem is that the noise patterns seen in a CMOS imager are random. Unlike a CCD imager which has static noise that can be easily removed by a dark frame calibration taken at the same length of exposure, CMOS is a little more trickier to deal with.

Currently there are a few products on the market that are working with CMOS imagers to create a solid state Astro-imager using this technology vs. the CCD.

The main reason that CMOS builds heat faster than CCD is that CMOS requires on-chip processing to convert light energy to readable data for storage and display. CCD uses an off-chip processing technique which takes light energy and dumps it to a processor to free up the imager. Therefore, less heat is built up and longer exposures and higher sensitivity are possible. That is why most astronomers choose CCD over CMOS. CCD has a higher response to light than CMOS and have a higher resolution at higher ISO settings.


And


Should I use a CMOS or CCD imager for astrophotography? |
In general there is a small bias towards CCD in astrophotography. This is due to the signal-to-noise performance of the sensor. This allows them to be more accurate over long-exposure shots. This is also aided by a more uniform readout across the entire sensor, something that some CMOS chips struggle with. It isn’t all bad news for CMOS devices though as they in general have much faster readout times and it’s a much younger technology than CCD so improvements are being made much quicker.

And finally to your point about the other side...this guy says CMOS are fine too, but it is the rest of the stuff surrounding the sensors in today's market that is driving towards CCDs for astro:

DSLR CMOS vs CCD BAYER SENSOR ANALYSIS
What makes the CCD sensors used in dedicated astro-imaging cameras inherently low noise is a combination of photosite size and well depth, up to 16bit a/d gate, and most importantly cooling. Unfortunately you cannot use a dedicated CCD astro-camera for anything else. Unless you are determined and able to make good use of it, year in, year out, it is dead money.

The virtue of a DSLR is that you can use it for almost any type of photography. It is a versatile portable camera that doesn't need a laptop. But DSLR's do not have cooled sensors, and for print resolution reasons, tend to have photosites ≈ 5 to 7 microns, and readout gates 12bit or 14bit a/d. This makes CCD DSLR's just as noisy, if not more noisy than some CMOS DSLR's.

Good times!

[Digitalis]

Pentax' modern CMOS sensors blow away any Pentax CCD

Except at Base ISO.

[pathdoc]

I wish my *ist-DL had been repairable in order to be compared directly to its K-5 successor. Even then, my plan to shoot both at identical ISO (as high and low as the *ist-D would go) and 6MP resolution for comparison would have been foiled by the different sensor types - apples to oranges comparison.

How long will it be before the turning on of the camera is accompanied by the whirring of the world's smallest cooling fan? Say goodbye to WR when that happens!